Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It actually has 11.25 effective turrets not 10 ontop of the fact that it gets this dmg out of 5 guns instead of 7 meaning that your comment about the loss of the 8th high hurting it's utility is wrong as the ship now has 2 utility high slots rather than 1.

Also, while it's lost dps in terms of eft, the move from rof to all dmg means that in the short term, it's going to do more dps compared to the older sleipnir. Alpha from arty setup is also higher.

EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.

You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs...

Oh well, that's fine then. We've found a role for the EOS!

It's a 200m isk rat-catcher :)

Quite the opposite. By using but five highs for turrets you now got two medium neuts. Also the easier fitting by using only 5 modules, you don't have to sacrifice three cows anymore to fit artillery.



It's a little tight, but ammo consumption is now of that sort that you reload once for damage type, and afterwards you could burn all the way through a proteus buffer without reloading :) Aside from that, I fitted that up before that last CPU adjustment, means that the CPU-rig can be switched for a t2 therm/explo-rig and that RF gyro can be switched for a regular T2.
Sleipnirs have been attractive before, the acceptable speed (especially linked some 2.3km/s OH) and damageoutput basically stays as is, but utility got increased.

When going for smallscale brawlfits, you can stuff two med neuts, a cap booster or ASB and medium or top tier guns on pretty much any of these.

all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships

Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it..
When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle.
I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark.
Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.

With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..

Big quote, tiny response. You should read this post by CCP Fozzie in this other thread which goes into where they want command ships to go and what the problems with them at present are.

I believe you can infer answers or at least general direction of answers to all of your questions from that post.



These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly.

250km is outside the range of most weaponry (but not ravens with cruise missiles). but that's ok. Correct tactical positioning of your command post is part of warfare.

The point is that once it's on grid it's part of the fight. It's quite possible to get a ship near it because you can see it. And once you've got a ship within weapons range, other ships can warp to the first ship.

So, getting a command ship to the grid outside weapons range is one thing. Keeping it that way is another entirely. This is a good thing, because it gives the pilot of the command ship something to do: i.e. staying out of weapons range while keeping the links running as much as possible. That's not going to be so easy.

I agree with you here but my question still stands as far as what is considered ongrid, will links be tied to a specific range? With grids as they are now, ongrid can vary greatly from system to system.
Yes keeping the links running and staying out of range poses problems. Add to that most of the command ships are about as maneuverable as a snail on wet glass and yes managing CS is not going to be easy. More an interesting challenge :P

I read the entire thing, I said 'other thread' because I was confusing that for a different saved post that actually was from a different thread than the FaID thread it pertained to. Oops

This is the relevant paragraph to what you're talking about:



With regards to "how on-grid is on-grid?" we can sum this up as "it won't matter". Having your CS on-grid but far away from the rest of your support fleet is a bigger risk to your boosts than having many distributed links and therefore command ships mixed into the rest of the fleet. Since we can at least surmise that "on-grid" has to mean literally rendering in-space to both fleets then that answers your question.

With the popularity of Battlecruiser fleets especially it becomes easy to have several primary command ships and then hide redundant backup links on-field among the rest of the DPS ships or simply have enough well-tanked command ships on field that it becomes impractical to try and DPS them all down rather than reducing enemy DPS.

Either way you're likely better off than sitting a CS off on the edge of the grid where it's potentially susceptible to grid-fu, cloaked warp-ins, and you don't have your full logistics support there to try and keep it online.




Have you actually run the stats on these between their current state on TQ and the revamp? Every ship is gaining either tank or DPS or both, between the 4th bonus and the full T2 resists applying to the pure DPS focused ships. The loss of extra guns on some is made up for added damage and they're flat out gaining in tanking potential, along with 2 utility high slots if they choose not to fit links meaning probe launchers, neuts, NOS, cloak, or any number of other fun options open up for these non-boosting roles.

I also never said that they should see their role as boosters reduced. The former DPS only ships are now much better at boosting and overall the entire class is gaining pretty significant buffs to their boosts with the second link type bonus, improved fittings for links, and extra tank.